This is not thieism.We are not told by our god to go forth and propogate.12 years and we have now reached 7 billion up from 6. 2045 most probably 9 billion.

As the population increases so dramatically there is more competition of scarce resources which will present as war revolution and quite possibly genocidal consequence.As the population increases it will be subject to a more fragile demographic which places large numbers of peoples in hazard when any natural occurance such as hurricane typhoon or drought occurs.As the population inreases much as we may personally care to recycle and do things of a sustainable manner(getting off the grid) our presence alone on this planet produces environmental harm which will make the future untenable.

There is no technological solution, eventually the population will stablize. Hard to say exactly when but maybe about 12 billion or so.Problem being, with 12 billion oe so, the human population will have such a hard sustainance existance in a largly poluted environment with little in the way of unowned space, berift with war and territorial agression as each nation tries to feed its peoples, mass deaths and such occuring of such frequency...dharma will be quite quite hard to engage in.

Think not..you are quite deluded.

Forget your biological imperative and your lonliness. It's great to teach and have a householders life but one may be had with one child as well as two or four or more.Forced sterilizations of course not. Planned parenthood and birth control....yes by all means.

Billions will die before their time if we keep going this way. And those that live their standard of living in many cases will not be lives worth living.

Well some may say...well Look at those living that way right now.Correct and true but the presence of a fault in a thing does not mean that thing is entirely faulted.WE cannot stop trying to be good and do good things as occasionally we may do bad things...the logic is faulted that proposes that. a form of nihilism it is.WE must all do what we can

in this specific work to support planned parenting, not accidental or thought devine inspiration of parenthood.There are just to many of us.

"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.

quote......James Carafano - “Given that the tsunami killed 150,000 people in Southeast Asia, I frankly think we responded pretty well to a storm that might have done the same, given the density of the population in the area where it hit. Essentially, Katrina was a nuclear bomb without a mushroom cloud or radiation.” ....

"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.

Point being...if a enemy is perceived such as a binladen throwing that thing causing say 3 thousand deaths, or a government is causeing action which may result in war of a nuclear sort such as a US agression or China or Pakistan or any other.....we rise in consort do this and that of all sort and manner.

A other issue when we ourselves with what is our natural inclination cause some thing to happen like the impending deaths of billions prematurely subsequent to effect of global warming......oh well...that's the way it goes, com si com sa.....what's a mother to doall is in the end dead anyway, what can one do, what is the importance of this anyway, and what singnificance to me this thing, and on and on and on..

ah humanity....

when the enemy is we ourselves...remote seems the solution.self When perceived enemy is viable and present... other

close seems the solution.

"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.

Overpopulation causes over production of carbon dioxide as we generate electricity, drive automobiles, heat homes, etc. That carbon dioxide is increasing the temperature of the earth, which in turn is melting glaciers and ice caps around the world. When the glaciers are gone, streams and rivers in the summer will be dry, including most of the worlds major rivers. Aquifers are also drying up as we use the water in them. Dry rivers and aquifers will cause people to starve, by the billions. Computer simulations predict that sometime after 2040, half of the world's population will die off. Thus, forty years ago, I had a vasectomy to prevent myself from having any children. I believe that contributing to overpopulation by having a child will, in the future, starve several people to death--including, perhaps, my own child if I had any.

I married a woman with two children; thus, I have a family and do not regret my decision not to be a biological father.

HHDL: "My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."

I have in the past volunteered. Now just give little amounts of money to various groups.

REally the issue is usually related to womans rights or lack of such. Women considered by men to be just vehicles for the men.I am not a feminist but in the nonindustrialized world it is usually not a issue of the woman wanting to have seven or so children but a issue of the societal constraints makeing it impossible for her to say no...

some may be in the form of religion such as edicts found in some books to go forth and propogate. Found in perhaps other form more usually..... but the woman is pressured.

I can assume it is quite quite painful and deabilitating to have say...seven children especially where medical care is not present. It is not voluntary in that sense...So education and equaity of women is probably the first step.But we can do little but perhaps donate to groups that do such things. Or volunteer if we have the time.

In this context of consideration a religious figure then refuseing to allow the women to utilize common sex things such as condoms would be not just a religious extension but a extension of the superior role of man over woman. Perhaps inherant to that religion, but certainly in this expression...(don't use condems).

Some religious authorities in some faiths do refuse that useage.

"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.

ronnewmexico wrote:This is not thieism.We are not told by our god to go forth and propogate.12 years and we have now reached 7 billion up from 6. 2045 most probably 9 billion.

There is nothing we can do to avoid a planet with between 8-9 B people on it by 2050 and probably more. We can slow the rate of growth (in general this is the case in the northern hemisphere - much of the northern hemisphere has 0% or even negative growth). In the southern hemisphere we still have growth although that too has slowed. In emerging nations like Brazil we have constrained growth in urban areas but in rural areas we still have extremely high population growth.

Why? Because people in non-technological societies need large families in order to support agricultural based life and old age support and a built-in human anticipation of death of humans before about 40 yrs of age (esp. high childhood mortality).

However the northern hemisphere transitioned from an agricultural based society to an industrial and eventual to a technological society over the past century. But it took several decades to just reduce the birth rate in the northern hemisphere. Now the southern hemisphere is transitioning to an industrial and technological society. If the southern hemisphere goes through the same kind of transition that the northern hemisphere did then we will have unrecoverable ecological collapse. No matter what happens the birth rate in the south will not really be reduced for a few more decades and this is even after a concerted effort to reduce the birth rate world wide.

Another factor is that the human birthrate always follows the death rate but asymmetrically - as the death rate declines, the birth rate declines but if the death rate increases due to war or plague (and maybe due to disaster) then humans reproduce too much and the birth rate overshoots that required to replace the population that died.

The south is currently a major source of low intensity war. So overall the replacement rate following those wars will be high unless action is taken.

We are more likely to hit 10-12 B people by 2050 and only taper off growth at that point.

Over population is not the problem. The numbers are meaningless. Over density is. This means America doesn't need to do anything, and India does. At worst, America will have to promote ruralization for their surplus population. Furthermore, the birth rates throughout the first world are below the death rates, so where are all these new people coming from? The third world, almost by itself.

Demanding that the first world have less children is silly and foolish.

Equanimity is the ground. Love is the moisture. Compassion is the seed. Bodhicitta is the result.

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.Through the qualities of meditating in that way,Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

Konchog1 wrote:Over population is not the problem. The numbers are meaningless. Over density is. This means America doesn't need to do anything, and India does. At worst, America will have to promote ruralization for their surplus population. Furthermore, the birth rates throughout the first world are below the death rates, so where are all these new people coming from? The third world, almost by itself.

Demanding that the first world have less children is silly and foolish.

Indeed, overpopulation has been a popular myth perpetuated ever since Malthus came up with the idea though it was largely based on race supremacy. Hitler drew some inspiration for it with his ideas of apocalyptic racial holy wars for resources and breathing room. The reason there are population problems you touched on exactly which is density and this is largely a problem due to national boundaries and the various borders humans have created to herd themselves into certain areas. The reality is America's agriculture destroys more than it uses to feed people in order to keep prices elevated and not flood the marketplace. If agriculture was actually done in a way to feed people instead of making a profit feeding our current population would be easy and with surplus. The problem is artificial borders and division of humanity. It is truly a false dilemma and the fighting over resources would disappear along with the border issues. The reason resources are declared scarce is due to low production due to high demand which leads to inflated prices. This is the reason the United States doesn't tap its massive oil fields as it would drive down prices of oil dramatically and not make OPEC very happy nor their investors.

Konchog1 wrote:Over population is not the problem. The numbers are meaningless. Over density is.

Density is not the sole problem. Some (how many?) nations lack the resources to support their populations or they are getting close to that. Zimbabwe is the classic example (and they actually have the resources - they're a mess because of oppression by their ruling elite who would like to exaggerate the significant hit they took on liberation from SA and the white Zimbabwean who left/fled/were kicked out, etc.). Most of the problems are in fact cooperation issues. But we do have a limited capacity to feed the world going forward. Apparently we can feed about 10 B now but obviously war and intentional obstruction keeps everyone from being fed and housed adequately.

Slavish devotion to capitalism and a generally selfish society keep people in the US and Germany and some other tech societies from acquiring and consuming necessary life resources.

Konchog1 wrote:Over population is not the problem. The numbers are meaningless. Over density is.

Density is not the sole problem. Some (how many?) nations lack the resources to support their populations or they are getting close to that. Zimbabwe is the classic example (and they actually have the resources - they're a mess because of oppression by their ruling elite who would like to exaggerate the significant hit they took on liberation from SA and the white Zimbabwean who left/fled/were kicked out, etc.). Most of the problems are in fact cooperation issues. But we do have a limited capacity to feed the world going forward. Apparently we can feed about 10 B now but obviously war and intentional obstruction keeps everyone from being fed and housed adequately.

Slavish devotion to capitalism and a generally selfish society keep people in the US and Germany and some other tech societies from acquiring and consuming necessary life resources.

In the past, population has been limited by the planet's floods, droughts etc., but I wonder if we have tipped into inevitably killing the planet due to the speed of industrial growth, and causing our own extinction at the same time.

It is, of course, possible that an equilibrium may result.

It is also possible that every insect on the planet may take rebirth as a human, or as a death-dealing farting cow.

Blue Garuda wrote:In the past, population has been limited by the planet's floods, droughts etc., but I wonder if we have tipped into inevitably killing the planet due to the speed of industrial growth, and causing our own extinction at the same time.

It is, of course, possible that an equilibrium may result.

I think the earth's biosphere has suffered larger hits to it than the effects of humanity's industrial civilization. It is still givin' her.

In this century we'll see ecological payback for our collective misdeeds and then suffer declining petroleum production which is necessary to sustain the seven or eight billion people we'll soon have.

Humanity will survive, but in a century or two we'll be back at pre-industrial population levels. A lot of people will die this century.